Mary said: "Perhaps he might even be able to forget that Orthodoxy has an issue with sexual abuse at all if he spent more time here."

Dear Forum Members and Father Ambrose in particular,

Having written to Father George quietly I see the the statement above was the real fly in the ointment and I am sorry that I gave "voice" to it in fact.

I was actually frustrated with some of your responses to me Father Ambrose and I let it out in print, so I do apologize to you because I know that you have the souls of the faithful at heart in all you try to do and say. But the issue is one that cries out for real and active promulgation of the hard truths of our shared moral traditions with respect to sexual behaviors and their consequences, and to call me cunning or to suggest that I am fabricating things is not helpful in any dialogue.

I was being provocative when I said that Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church do not share moral parity. In both cases our practice makes it clear that we share principles but that we fall far far and away too short of making those principles part of our daily lives.

So please pardon and forgive my passionate rendering of something that I care very deeply about. Over the years, rather than becoming numbed to the realization that clergy and laity have clay feet, I become even more sensitive as I grow older and see and experience more and realize how fleeting the pleasures of sinful passions and how terrible are their consequences.

It is not impossible to exercise self-control. In fact, the rare cases when we can do so gracefully are quite lovely for all concerned and the effects go well beyond our line of sight and sound.

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Be that as it may, my priest teaches that contraception is not the way to have a godly marriage as do many priests in our diocese. His Eminence Metropolitan Joseph teaches likewise. But I understand that your point was that the aforementioned priests are not teaching what their bishops teach.

I may be poking a hornets nest here (and please forgive me if I am) but are they justified in disagreeing with their bishops if their bishops are wrong? Did not many people die as martyrs during the iconoclast persecution? Was not a good majority of the Church subscribing to Arianism in the 4th century? Surely in those times there were presbyters as well as laity that disagreed with their hierarchs.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Be that as it may, my priest teaches that contraception is not the way to have a godly marriage as do many priests in our diocese. His Eminence Metropolitan Joseph teaches likewise. But I understand that your point was that the aforementioned priests are not teaching what their bishops teach.

I may be poking a hornets nest here (and please forgive me if I am) but are they justified in disagreeing with their bishops if their bishops are wrong? Did not many people die as martyrs during the iconoclast persecution? Was not a good majority of the Church subscribing to Arianism in the 4th century? Surely in those times there were presbyters as well as laity that disagreed with their hierarchs.

In Christ,Andrew

I think you're assigning to your definition of "disagree" more of a concept of actual disobedience than I am. I suppose, therefore, that a priest can disagree with his bishop as much as he wants... as long as the priest ultimately puts aside his disagreement and maintains obedience to his bishop when called upon to do so.

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Be that as it may, my priest teaches that contraception is not the way to have a godly marriage as do many priests in our diocese. His Eminence Metropolitan Joseph teaches likewise. But I understand that your point was that the aforementioned priests are not teaching what their bishops teach.

I may be poking a hornets nest here (and please forgive me if I am) but are they justified in disagreeing with their bishops if their bishops are wrong? Did not many people die as martyrs during the iconoclast persecution? Was not a good majority of the Church subscribing to Arianism in the 4th century? Surely in those times there were presbyters as well as laity that disagreed with their hierarchs.

In Christ,Andrew

I suppose that I look at it from a pastoral point of view and if parishioners are being told by their parish priest that they may not use any form of birth control then they will probably simply 1) disobey their parish priest or 2) start attending another parish where the priest actually teaches in conformity with what his bishop teaches.

It is worrying if the unity of a diocese is under attack from priests with dissident teachings.

It is also worrying if young and inexperienced convert priests are arrogating to themselves the teaching function which belongs to the episcopate. Fr Josiah Trenham has been a parish priest for only two years.

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Be that as it may, my priest teaches that contraception is not the way to have a godly marriage as do many priests in our diocese. His Eminence Metropolitan Joseph teaches likewise. But I understand that your point was that the aforementioned priests are not teaching what their bishops teach.

I may be poking a hornets nest here (and please forgive me if I am) but are they justified in disagreeing with their bishops if their bishops are wrong? Did not many people die as martyrs during the iconoclast persecution? Was not a good majority of the Church subscribing to Arianism in the 4th century? Surely in those times there were presbyters as well as laity that disagreed with their hierarchs.

In Christ,Andrew

I suppose that I look at it from a pastoral point of view and if parishioners are being told by their parish priest that they may not use any form of birth control then they will probably simply 1) disobey their parish priest or 2) start attending another parish where the priest actually teaches in conformity with what his bishop teaches.

It is worrying if the unity of a diocese is under attack from priests with dissident teachings.

It is also worrying if young and inexperienced convert priests are arrogating to themselves the teaching function which belongs to the episcopate. Fr Josiah Trenham has been a parish priest for only two years.

May his tribe increase and may his kind of thinking with respect to birth control re-root itself in Orthodoxy.

So is it true that the Orthodox church has changed its teaching on artificial birth control? This might be a point of disagreement between RC and EO, but the fact is that according to the reports, there are a great number of Catholics who do not follow the official teaching on this. Anyway, I don't see this as a stumbling block which would prevent Catholics and Orthodox from working together.

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Be that as it may, my priest teaches that contraception is not the way to have a godly marriage as do many priests in our diocese. His Eminence Metropolitan Joseph teaches likewise. But I understand that your point was that the aforementioned priests are not teaching what their bishops teach.

I may be poking a hornets nest here (and please forgive me if I am) but are they justified in disagreeing with their bishops if their bishops are wrong? Did not many people die as martyrs during the iconoclast persecution? Was not a good majority of the Church subscribing to Arianism in the 4th century? Surely in those times there were presbyters as well as laity that disagreed with their hierarchs.

In Christ,Andrew

I suppose that I look at it from a pastoral point of view and if parishioners are being told by their parish priest that they may not use any form of birth control then they will probably simply 1) disobey their parish priest or 2) start attending another parish where the priest actually teaches in conformity with what his bishop teaches.

It is worrying if the unity of a diocese is under attack from priests with dissident teachings.

It is also worrying if young and inexperienced convert priests are arrogating to themselves the teaching function which belongs to the episcopate. Fr Josiah Trenham has been a parish priest for only two years.

May his tribe increase and may his kind of thinking with respect to birth control re-root itself in Orthodoxy.

Well, if the OCA and American Antiochia wish to exhaust their female stock in an avalanche of birthgiving, good luck to them.

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Be that as it may, my priest teaches that contraception is not the way to have a godly marriage as do many priests in our diocese. His Eminence Metropolitan Joseph teaches likewise. But I understand that your point was that the aforementioned priests are not teaching what their bishops teach.

I may be poking a hornets nest here (and please forgive me if I am) but are they justified in disagreeing with their bishops if their bishops are wrong? Did not many people die as martyrs during the iconoclast persecution? Was not a good majority of the Church subscribing to Arianism in the 4th century? Surely in those times there were presbyters as well as laity that disagreed with their hierarchs.

In Christ,Andrew

I suppose that I look at it from a pastoral point of view and if parishioners are being told by their parish priest that they may not use any form of birth control then they will probably simply 1) disobey their parish priest or 2) start attending another parish where the priest actually teaches in conformity with what his bishop teaches.

It is worrying if the unity of a diocese is under attack from priests with dissident teachings.

It is also worrying if young and inexperienced convert priests are arrogating to themselves the teaching function which belongs to the episcopate. Fr Josiah Trenham has been a parish priest for only two years.

I've priviledged to have Fr. Reardon as my pastor, and know his views on this issue. I can't say that they are terribly different, if at all, from most, if not all, of the parishioners. I haven't heard Bishop Mark speak on the issue, so I don't know what his views are. Not being married anymore at present, it isn't as pressing an issue as it was.

There is option 3), which I've seen ( , I mean heard first hand): parishoners change their minds.

If Fr. Pat teaches the Theology of the Body, he hides it well. His agreement with much of it is in ful view, though.

If it is a problem in the Diocese, I'm not aware of it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Be that as it may, my priest teaches that contraception is not the way to have a godly marriage as do many priests in our diocese. His Eminence Metropolitan Joseph teaches likewise. But I understand that your point was that the aforementioned priests are not teaching what their bishops teach.

I may be poking a hornets nest here (and please forgive me if I am) but are they justified in disagreeing with their bishops if their bishops are wrong? Did not many people die as martyrs during the iconoclast persecution? Was not a good majority of the Church subscribing to Arianism in the 4th century? Surely in those times there were presbyters as well as laity that disagreed with their hierarchs.

In Christ,Andrew

I suppose that I look at it from a pastoral point of view and if parishioners are being told by their parish priest that they may not use any form of birth control then they will probably simply 1) disobey their parish priest or 2) start attending another parish where the priest actually teaches in conformity with what his bishop teaches.

It is worrying if the unity of a diocese is under attack from priests with dissident teachings.

It is also worrying if young and inexperienced convert priests are arrogating to themselves the teaching function which belongs to the episcopate. Fr Josiah Trenham has been a parish priest for only two years.

May his tribe increase and may his kind of thinking with respect to birth control re-root itself in Orthodoxy.

Mary

May the Vatican's morally justified stance on contraception continue to aid the deaths of millions of people in Africa (including babies and children) due to AIDS!

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

May the Vatican's morally justified stance on contraception continue to aid the deaths of millions of people in Africa (including babies and children) due to AIDS!

There is hard evidence that condoms contribute to the spread of AIDS. That condoms decrease the incidence of sex is a lie.

Professor Green from Harvard provided some of that evidence when the press attacked the Pope on his trip to Africa. Professor Green ran the AIDS project at Harvard and he sent a letter to the NYT saying that people on the ground in Africa, teachers and health workers and nurses were all calling for more advertisements for abstinence as the answer to stopping AIDS and they were asking for money to do abstinence education. Professor Green said he was not a religious man but in this case the Pope had the correct solution according to the people on the ground dealing with the issues locally.

The day after the NYT ran the editorial, Professor Green lost his funding. I had written to him the thank him for his article and I asked him how he could get away with being so honest. It was then that he wrote back and told me that he no longer headed the AIDS project at Harvard.

I once spent time with some raw data from studies done in southern Africa and I can tell you that this is true. More than one correspondent called for more abstinence education and fewer condoms, saying that condoms gave people a false sense of security and they were more promiscuous, not less. Those parts of the data were systematically ignored.

So from my perspective your comments here are ignorant and worse than that they are irresponsible and worse than that they lead to a perpetuation of the problem and worse than that...you won't change your mind even if the truth hit you in the face like a wet mackerel!!

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Apology

I have received a message from one of these three priests saying that I am guilty of calumny and he does not subscribe to the "theology of the body."

Since I made the statement in public I am doing the same with the apology.

The message was anonymous; I do not know which of the three priests has contacted me.

This is a pink flamingo you raise here because the bottom line is that where there are condoms there is very often NO definitive, and long-term decrease in the spread of HIV-AIDS and often the incidences increase instead.

Where there is strict abstinence training and solid moral training there is always a decrease in instances over time and as long as the training and encouragement remains the good effects remain.

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years. You should retire that stump.

I made enquiries and was told that there are three convert priests in the States who adopt a stance which is contary to their bishops' views and teaching on contraception - Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

Apparently these three priests are not successful and are not permitted to impose their views on their parishioners.

The information to hand is that they also promote the Roman Catholic teaching of Pope John Paul and the "theology of the body."

Apology

I have received a message from one of these three priests saying that I am guilty of calumny and he does not subscribe to the "theology of the body."

Since I made the statement in public I am doing the same with the apology.

The message was anonymous; I do not know which of the three priests has contacted me.

Forgive me, Father. Nizki poklon.

Fr Ambrose

I am finding that most Catholics who follow Humanae Vitae do not then, by extension of ascetic spirituality and praxis, subscribe to the distortions of the Theology of the Body that have been introduced by speakers and authors, such as Christopher West in particular, whose exhortations destroy modesty at the very least and incite the faithful to sin against the first and ninth commandment at its worst and are a scandal in the traditional sense of the word.

There is finally a group of Catholics young and old alike who are beginning to push back at this licentious perversion of John Paul II's teaching on the body and conjugal love where sex on demand is name of the game and perversion becomes foreplay.

So whoever the Orthodox priest is who says he does not subscribe, I say "Thanks God!!"

So from my perspective your comments here are ignorant and worse than that they are irresponsible and worse than that they lead to a perpetuation of the problem and worse than that...you won't change your mind even if the truth hit you in the face like a wet mackerel!!

That strange sound you hear is me grinding my teeth.

Mary

I'm not going to argue that condoms contribute to the spread of AIDS. Hopefully this is just your opinion and not some official catholic stance since that claim is borderline neanderthal-like in terms of primitiveness.

And grind your teeth all you like, my girlfriend does it in her sleep

Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic

This is a pink flamingo you raise here because the bottom line is that where there are condoms there is very often NO definitive, and long-term decrease in the spread of HIV-AIDS and often the incidences increase instead.

Where there is strict abstinence training and solid moral training there is always a decrease in instances over time and as long as the training and encouragement remains the good effects remain.

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years. You should retire that stump.

Mary

It is absolutely disgusting and vile to make out that I have defended "sexual license among human beings for years." When we have spoken of contraception I have presented my Church's position, in a responsible and sober manner. For you to call that a "defense of sexual licence"...?!

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

How is it cool when Orthodoxy allows both artificial birth control and abortion...depending?

How is that cool?

M.

Orthodoxy does not allow these things! At least not in our Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. And I dare say that EO priests (i.e. Chalcedonian) who "allow" such things are contradicting the historical Teachings and Tradition of the Church.

Selam

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Document Issued by the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, in August 2000, Moscow, Russia

2. Since the ancient time the Church has viewed deliberate abortion as a grave sin. The canons equate abortion with murder. This assessment is based on the conviction that the conception of a human being is a gift of God. Therefore, from the moment of conception any encroachment on the life of a future human being is criminal.

The Psalmist describes the development of the foetus in a mother’s womb as God’s creative action: “thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb… My substance was not hid from thee, them I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest part of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance” (Ps. 139:13, 15-16). Job testifies to the same in the words addressed to God: “thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about… Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved by spirit… Thou brought me forth out of the womb” (Job 10:8-12, 18). “I formed thee in the belly… and before thou comest out of the womb I sanctified thee”, says the Lord to the Prophet Jeremiah. “Thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide” — this order is placed among the most important commandments of God in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, one of the oldest Christian manuscripts. “A woman who brought on abortion is a murderer and will give an account to God”, wrote Athenagoras, an apologist of the 2nd century. “One who will be man is already man”, argued Tertullian at the turn of the 3d century. “She who purposely destroys the foetus, shall suffer the punishment of murder… Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the same penalty as murder”, read the 2nd and 8th rules of St. Basil the Great, included in the Book of Statutes of the Orthodox Church and confirmed by Canon 91 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. At the same time, St. Basil clarifies: “And we pay no attention to the subtle distinction as to whether the foetus was formed or unformed”. St. John Chrysostom described those who perform abortion as “being worse than murderers”.

The Church sees the widely spread and justified abortion in contemporary society as a threat to the future of humanity and a clear sign of its moral degradation. It is incompatible to be faithful to the biblical and patristic teaching that human life is sacred and precious from its origin and to recognise woman’s “free choice” in disposing of the fate of the foetus. In addition, abortion present a serious threat to the physical and spiritual health of a mother. The Church has always considered it her duty to protect the most vulnerable and dependent human beings, namely, unborn children.

Under no circumstances the Orthodox Church can bless abortion. Without rejecting the women who had an abortion, the Church calls upon them to repent and to overcome the destructive consequences of the sin through prayer and penance followed by participation in the salvific Sacraments. In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the priest who takes her confession. The struggle with abortion, to which women sometimes have to resort because of abject poverty and helplessness, demands that the Church and society work out effective measures to protect motherhood and to create conditions for the adoption of the children whose mothers cannot raise them on their own for some reason.

Responsibility for the sin of the murder of the unborn child should be borne, along with the mother, by the father if he gave his consent to the abortion. If a wife had an abortion without the consent of her husband, it may be grounds for divorce (see X. 3). Sin also lies with the doctor who performed the abortion. The Church calls upon the state to recognise the right of medics to refuse to procure abortion for the reasons of conscience. The situation cannot be considered normal where the legal responsibility of a doctor for the death of a mother is made incomparably higher than the responsibility for the destruction of the foetus — the situation that provokes medics and through them patients, too, to do abortions. The doctor should be utterly responsible in establishing a diagnosis that can prompt a woman to interrupt her pregnancy. In doing so, a believing medic should carefully correlate the clinic indications with the dictates of his Christian conscience.

Document Adopted by the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, in August 2000, Moscow, Russia

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in its Decision of December 28, 1998, instructed the clergy serving as spiritual guides that «it is inadmissible to coerce or induce the flock to… refuse conjugal relations in marriage». It also reminded the pastors of the need «to show special chastity and special pastoral prudence in discussing with the flock the questions involved in particular aspects of their family life».

So from my perspective your comments here are ignorant and worse than that they are irresponsible and worse than that they lead to a perpetuation of the problem and worse than that...you won't change your mind even if the truth hit you in the face like a wet mackerel!!

That strange sound you hear is me grinding my teeth.

Mary

I'm not going to argue that condoms contribute to the spread of AIDS. Hopefully this is just your opinion and not some official catholic stance since that claim is borderline neanderthal-like in terms of primitiveness.

And grind your teeth all you like, my girlfriend does it in her sleep

It is not my opinion. It is demonstrable statistical fact.

Condoms lead to complacency...lead to promiscuity....lead to an up-swing in instances of HIV-AIDS.

I've read the in-country reports from teachers, nurses, public servants...and the like.

Over and over again they ask for abstinence training and over and over again the Wold Bank and World Health Organization turn a deaf ear and Planned Parenthood turn a deaf ear. How deeply does Planned Parenthood activities penetrate into Orthodox countries now?

Poking fun at my Church does not change the facts. Abstinence and closed relationships, monogamous or polygamous, works to reduce the instances of HIV-AIDS.

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is NO artificial birth control of any kind.

Orthodox teaching, according to you and many other Orthodox, but not ALL Orthodox, is that SOME artificial birth control is fine and necessary. Also according to you that is the position of your bishop and your Patriarch.

Till all of that changes to read NO artificial birth control, then the Patriarch's comment that frames the subject of this thread is false. They may be similar, but hardly the same or like-minded. And till it is we are not going to really be able to work together on moral issues...which is the point of the discussion in this topic.

And I continue to be convinced that, de facto, there are Orthodox clergy and bishops, who will make the occasional exception for abortion sending ALL the wrong signals to their flocks.

The point is NOT that the laity fails to follow the teaching of their respective Churches, or succeeds...

The point in question here is whether or not Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church follow the same formal teaching, de facto and de jure. My own observations are "Not yet." And more to the point I do not believe that they would want to give up that little escape clause built into sexual teaching.

I say close the gap and let the faithful confess their transgressions. That is the, what was it called?...Neanderthal.... position of the Pope. Not at all like-minded with the Patriarch, as far as I can see from here. Apparently that Patriarchs are more modern in their thinking...not at all Neanderthal!!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

And I continue to be convinced that, de facto, there are Orthodox clergy and bishops, who will make the occasional exception for abortion sending ALL the wrong signals to their flocks.

As well as RC Clergy and Bishops.

You may well be right. But they tend not to express that personal perspective where the faithful and other clergy can hear it. If that were true about Orthodox clergy and bishops, I would not have heard it often enough to be concerned.

Also as I noted earlier Father Stanley in his text on Orthodox moral theology explicitly allows for abortion to save the life of the mother. In that text there is NO discussion of or distinction drawn between double effect and abortion. Nor have I ever heard anyone explain double effect in any Orthodox discussion of moral theology.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

He's the Canadian politician who pretends to be a Catholic priest? I think so.

He was ordered out of politics. I doubt that he's been removed from service as a priest but there's been steady pressure to muzzle him. He has currency among the most liberal or dissident of Catholics...even luke warm Catholics in this country recognize his fanaticism...and reject his message, and they vote with their wallets because pro-life Catholic groups are getting the donations from inside the Church...not the dissidents looking to distribute condoms.

I think the point I am making and I'll use Father Harakas's book to make it is that, formally, Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church do not yet teach the same message on sexual morality.

He's the Canadian politician who pretends to be a Catholic priest? I think so.

He was ordered out of politics. I doubt that he's been removed from service as a priest but there's been steady pressure to muzzle him. He has currency among the most liberal or dissident of Catholics...even luke warm Catholics in this country recognize his fanaticism...and reject his message, and they vote with their wallets because pro-life Catholic groups are getting the donations from inside the Church...not the dissidents looking to distribute condoms.

I think the point I am making and I'll use Father Harakas's book to make it is that, formally, Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church do not yet teach the same message on sexual morality.

And no, given the Vatican's teaching on artificial annullment, we do not teach the same message.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

He's the Canadian politician who pretends to be a Catholic priest? I think so.

He was ordered out of politics. I doubt that he's been removed from service as a priest but there's been steady pressure to muzzle him. He has currency among the most liberal or dissident of Catholics...even luke warm Catholics in this country recognize his fanaticism...and reject his message, and they vote with their wallets because pro-life Catholic groups are getting the donations from inside the Church...not the dissidents looking to distribute condoms.

I think the point I am making and I'll use Father Harakas's book to make it is that, formally, Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church do not yet teach the same message on sexual morality.

And no, given the Vatican's teaching on artificial annullment, we do not teach the same message.

That is quite right. The Catholic Church does not teach divorce either and does not recognize so-called second marriages. One wonders, superficially, what the Patriarch is thinking...eh? I expect that there's more going on there than meets the eye, but I do think the message needs to be made more clear.

I was about to come back and say that I am not speaking in terms of tit-for-tat but am saying that both Churches will have to find some way to speak with one voice concerning their various approaches to sexual morality and marriage in particular, but of course there's no room for that is there.

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Lies,all lies. I reacted strongly to the extreme positions regarding sex and marriage promulgated on your e-list by a young convert under the spiritual direction of Fr Ambrose Young.

Fr Ambrose Young himself protested strongly on more than one occasion that his protege had gone too far.

You yourself made the same protestation against this young man's opinions on sexuality and marriage.

A bishop on your list also strongly protested.

It is vile and despicable of you (and what excuse is there? you have an excellent intelligence and know what you are about) to claim that you have "listened to your [my] defense of sexual license among human beings for years"

Vile and despicable! It brings tears to me eyes that you dishonour yourself like this, in order to score points. Do the right thing. Apologise.

And I continue to be convinced that, de facto, there are Orthodox clergy and bishops, who will make the occasional exception for abortion sending ALL the wrong signals to their flocks.

As well as RC Clergy and Bishops.

You may well be right. But they tend not to express that personal perspective where the faithful and other clergy can hear it. If that were true about Orthodox clergy and bishops, I would not have heard it often enough to be concerned.

Also as I noted earlier Father Stanley in his text on Orthodox moral theology explicitly allows for abortion to save the life of the mother. In that text there is NO discussion of or distinction drawn between double effect and abortion. Nor have I ever heard anyone explain double effect in any Orthodox discussion of moral theology.

You are missing the vocabulary of "double effect" in Fr Harakas' words? Why should you require him to use that terminology? You should know that the Orthodox do not speak in principle of "double effect." It is a Roman Catholic construal (as Fr Kimel would say.) But the morality of the choices and the thinking which underlies them is the same. Please do not use the absence of "double effect" terminology among the Orthodox in an attempt to denigrate the Orthodox and make out that we allow abortion.

Double Effect

"This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral theologians.

"The principle of double effect, once largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary philosophers. "

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

The only context I can think of in which non-abortofacient birth control could be used is in marriage, and this is usually penanced in some way from what I've heard, at any rate it is not blessed as something good, but regretted as something allowed to avoid a worse evil. Non-abortofacient birth control is an issue quite different from abortion, and since it would only be allowed in the context of marriage, there can be no argument that it promotes promiscuity. It is allowed in some cases to avoid infidelity. This allowance is a matter of pastoral praxis.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

And I continue to be convinced that, de facto, there are Orthodox clergy and bishops, who will make the occasional exception for abortion sending ALL the wrong signals to their flocks.

As well as RC Clergy and Bishops.

You may well be right. But they tend not to express that personal perspective where the faithful and other clergy can hear it. If that were true about Orthodox clergy and bishops, I would not have heard it often enough to be concerned.

Also as I noted earlier Father Stanley in his text on Orthodox moral theology explicitly allows for abortion to save the life of the mother. In that text there is NO discussion of or distinction drawn between double effect and abortion. Nor have I ever heard anyone explain double effect in any Orthodox discussion of moral theology.

You are missing the vocabulary of "double effect" in Fr Harakas' words? Why should you require him to use that terminology? You should know that the Orthodox do not speak in principle of "double effect." It is a Roman Catholic construal (as Fr Kimel would say.) But the morality of the choices and the thinking which underlies them is the same. Please do not use the absence of "double effect" terminology among the Orthodox in an attempt to denigrate the Orthodox and make out that we allow abortion.

Double Effect

"This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral theologians.

"The principle of double effect, once largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary philosophers. "

And I continue to be convinced that, de facto, there are Orthodox clergy and bishops, who will make the occasional exception for abortion sending ALL the wrong signals to their flocks.

As well as RC Clergy and Bishops.

You may well be right. But they tend not to express that personal perspective where the faithful and other clergy can hear it. If that were true about Orthodox clergy and bishops, I would not have heard it often enough to be concerned.

Also as I noted earlier Father Stanley in his text on Orthodox moral theology explicitly allows for abortion to save the life of the mother. In that text there is NO discussion of or distinction drawn between double effect and abortion. Nor have I ever heard anyone explain double effect in any Orthodox discussion of moral theology.

You are missing the vocabulary of "double effect" in Fr Harakas' words? Why should you require him to use that terminology? You should know that the Orthodox do not speak in principle of "double effect." It is a Roman Catholic construal (as Fr Kimel would say.) But the morality of the choices and the thinking which underlies them is the same. Please do not use the absence of "double effect" terminology among the Orthodox in an attempt to denigrate the Orthodox and make out that we allow abortion.

Double Effect

"This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral theologians.

"The principle of double effect, once largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary philosophers. "

As I said, it is a peculiar Roman Catholic and medieval concept which was birthed outside of Orthodxy and has generally been " largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians."

Father Stanley knows English pretty well. He never speaks of 'treating the mother' in the hopes that both will live. He speaks of allowing "ABORTION" in an attempt to save the mother's life.

Now there's a clear difference.

And he specifically says that "abortion" is justified if it is to save the mother's life.

Treating the mother in the hopes that BOTH will live is NEVER called abortion.

Mary

You are so blinkered by your cute legalistic terminology of "double effect" that you have no hope of seeing what Fr Harakas is really saying.

You are also blinkered by your determination to prove that Orthodoxy is a moral morass with regard to abortion. Your intention has been evident for quite some time.

Tell me, when you were catechized to become an "Orthodox in communion with Rome" were you warned by your catechist that Orthodoxy is grossly sinful in its teaching on abortion and this is one Orthodox teaching which you were forbidden to adopt?

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

You are also blinkered by your determination to prove that Orthodoxy is a moral morass with regard to abortion. Your intention has been evident for quite some time.

Fact of the matter is that I do not for a moment think that Orthodoxy, or the Orthodox, are in MORE of a moral morass than the Catholic Church. I'd be a durned idiot to try and make that claim stick.

What I have been trying to point out...as Father Ambrose Young and Father Augustine were trying also to point out to you over time on Irenikon...is that there is no clear formal teaching in Orthodoxy at the moment leading to less ambiguity rather than more ambiguity with regards sexual morality and the modern world.

So again, I challenge the Patriarch when he says that he and the Pope are like-minded on moral issues.

I think there's still a good bit of work to be done before that condition pertains in truth.

/\ /\ That message is a follow on from this one below. The basic topic to which I am responding is the contention by a young Orthodox convert that marriage is an inferior spiritual state, specifically, that there is no theosis occurring for sexually active married couples and their best option is to be abstinent!!

Fr Ambrose:

"My opinion is, following Saint Paul, that the sacrament of marriage has theexpectation of connubial activity between the married couple. Without it theunitive aspect of marriage is under assault. If our Lord wanted people to livein sexless marriage He would have indicated that and the Church would havecreated an alternative wedding ceremony without the numerous references to "fairchildren" and "may you see your children's children" etc."

I find *****'s idea that theosis is not happening for the great part ofthe Church, those sexually active in marriage, an intriguing one. Most of ourpeople are not on the path of theosis!! If you think about it in Catholic termsit would be tantamount to claiming that supernatural grace has been removed fromtheir souls. They are spiritually dead. For Catholics this dire condition ofspiritual death is created by mortal sin but for the Orthodox it would seem tobe created by the Sacrament of Matrimony and the attendant sexual activity!!

These are not ideal questions, are they... there are serious concerns for manyin the Church if what **** is saying about no theosis for the married(until after death) is correct.

And I continue to be convinced that, de facto, there are Orthodox clergy and bishops, who will make the occasional exception for abortion sending ALL the wrong signals to their flocks.

As well as RC Clergy and Bishops.

You may well be right. But they tend not to express that personal perspective where the faithful and other clergy can hear it. If that were true about Orthodox clergy and bishops, I would not have heard it often enough to be concerned.

Also as I noted earlier Father Stanley in his text on Orthodox moral theology explicitly allows for abortion to save the life of the mother. In that text there is NO discussion of or distinction drawn between double effect and abortion. Nor have I ever heard anyone explain double effect in any Orthodox discussion of moral theology.

You are missing the vocabulary of "double effect" in Fr Harakas' words? Why should you require him to use that terminology? You should know that the Orthodox do not speak in principle of "double effect." It is a Roman Catholic construal (as Fr Kimel would say.) But the morality of the choices and the thinking which underlies them is the same. Please do not use the absence of "double effect" terminology among the Orthodox in an attempt to denigrate the Orthodox and make out that we allow abortion.

Double Effect

"This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral theologians.

"The principle of double effect, once largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary philosophers. "

As I said, it is a peculiar Roman Catholic and medieval concept which was birthed outside of Orthodxy and has generally been " largely confined to discussions by Catholic moral theologians."

Father Stanley knows English pretty well. He never speaks of 'treating the mother' in the hopes that both will live. He speaks of allowing "ABORTION" in an attempt to save the mother's life.

Now there's a clear difference.

And he specifically says that "abortion" is justified if it is to save the mother's life.

Treating the mother in the hopes that BOTH will live is NEVER called abortion.

Mary

I have been told that the potential situation of having to choose between mother and baby as to which should live rarely, if ever, occurs anymore. The Orthodox Church, to my knowledge, is not in the habit of making glib official pronouncements on who who should live and who should die just to cover potentialities. If a decision is imminent, and what doctor would not try to save both?, then it should be made by the people involved with pastoral counsel. I fail to see how not pronouncing officially on a potentiality which may never occur due to medical advances, makes the Orthodox Church's position on infanticide less than an unqualified negative. If we're looking at hypotheticals to arrive at teaching, we're on shifting sands. Abortion/infanticide for whatever reason, even in the unlikely event that it would save the mother's life, is always wrong. Killing in self defense is always wrong. There are penances for both. And such is also an impediment to ordination.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

/\ /\ That message is a follow on from this one below. The basic topic to which I am responding is the contention by a young Orthodox convert that marriage is an inferior spiritual state, specifically, that there is no theosis occurring for sexually active married couples and their best option is to be abstinent!!

Fr Ambrose:

"My opinion is, following Saint Paul, that the sacrament of marriage has theexpectation of connubial activity between the married couple. Without it theunitive aspect of marriage is under assault. If our Lord wanted people to livein sexless marriage He would have indicated that and the Church would havecreated an alternative wedding ceremony without the numerous references to "fairchildren" and "may you see your children's children" etc."

I find *****'s idea that theosis is not happening for the great part ofthe Church, those sexually active in marriage, an intriguing one. Most of ourpeople are not on the path of theosis!! If you think about it in Catholic termsit would be tantamount to claiming that supernatural grace has been removed fromtheir souls. They are spiritually dead. For Catholics this dire condition ofspiritual death is created by mortal sin but for the Orthodox it would seem tobe created by the Sacrament of Matrimony and the attendant sexual activity!!

These are not ideal questions, are they... there are serious concerns for manyin the Church if what **** is saying about no theosis for the married(until after death) is correct.

If theosis were impossible for those married with children, we would not have married saints. But we have quite a few married saints, besides the language in the marriage service and the writings of the Fathers.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

You are also blinkered by your determination to prove that Orthodoxy is a moral morass with regard to abortion. Your intention has been evident for quite some time.

What I have been trying to point out...as Father Ambrose Young and Father Augustine were trying also to point out to you over time on Irenikon...is that there is no clear formal teaching in Orthodoxy at the moment leading to less ambiguity rather than more ambiguity with regards sexual morality and the modern world.

If that is what the trio of you are trying to point out then I think you are way off beam and depressingly defeatist.

Are you seriously saying that the Church has dealt with sexual morality in every "modern world" for the last 20 centuries but now.... along comes the 21st century and the Church is stumped for answers!!! It is adrift in a sea of moral ambiguities. The World had finally defeated the wisdom and knowledge of the Church! The best we can tell our people is... "Yes, we have had to deal with moral issues for 2,000 years in every different generation but now, in the year 2010 we cannot offer answers!!"

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois

I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it. For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about. You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly. Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference. Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife. To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose. IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois

I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it. For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about.

That is why I tried to offer a bit of context in message 81 above. I don't want the world to think that I go round seeing women as "luscious cherries" even if the Song of Songs refers to them as such !!

Quote

IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

And so do I. And I am really puzzled. The Mary I know and love is staunchly and rigorously honest.

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois

I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it. For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about. You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly. Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference. Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife. To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose. IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

I was there for the entire run of many threads on related subjects. I certainly do know the context.

And it is quite clear that Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is of the opinion that it is too difficult for married couples to abstain from sexual relations, even for brief periods and it is much better to offer Orthodox couples the option of barrier method birth control, and that is not only an option in Orthodoxy but it is the preferred option.

Again, I will say that the Patriarch is not quite correct when he says that he and the Pope is of like-mind with respect to sexual morality.

Father Ambrose, New Zealand, has every expectation that the Patriarch in question will support his proffered use of barrier method birth control.

That is what I have been saying. It is what I will continue to say till circumstance changes where I can see it and then I will change my mind along with circumstance.

Till then, it is no lie to say what I have said here.

Mary

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade. That seems to be just fine.

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois

I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it. For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about. You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly. Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference. Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife. To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose. IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

I was there for the entire run of many threads on related subjects. I certainly do know the context.

And it is quite clear that Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is of the opinion that it is too difficult for married couples to abstain from sexual relations, even for brief periods

It is my expectation that the married couples in my parish will abstain from sexual relations for the 49 days of the Great Fast. This is one facet of the fast on which I always preach to the faithful as Lent approaches.

I personally do not think that 49 days without sex is at all a brief period for a married couple and more strength to those who manage the complete 7 week fast.

May I ask how long your Catholic clergy require their married people to abstain from sex?

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois

I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it. For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about. You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly. Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference. Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife. To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose. IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

I was there for the entire run of many threads on related subjects. I certainly do know the context.

You certainly may know the context, but you misrepresent it here on this thread. Encouraging a married couple to have sex is NOT an endorsement of sexual promiscuity, which is how most will understand your phrase "sexual license".

And it is quite clear that Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is of the opinion that it is too difficult for married couples to abstain from sexual relations, even for brief periods and it is much better to offer Orthodox couples the option of barrier method birth control, and that is not only an option in Orthodoxy but it is the preferred option.

Again, I will say that the Patriarch is not quite correct when he says that he and the Pope is of like-mind with respect to sexual morality.

Father Ambrose, New Zealand, has every expectation that the Patriarch in question will support his proffered use of barrier method birth control.

That is what I have been saying. It is what I will continue to say till circumstance changes where I can see it and then I will change my mind along with circumstance.

Till then, it is no lie to say what I have said here.

But you have to admit that you're being dishonest by alleging that Fr. Ambrose advocates sexual license and by withholding information that refutes your allegation. As I learned honesty, not telling the whole truth is often as bad as telling a lie.

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade. That seems to be just fine.

I said absolutely nothing about Fr. Augustine and Fr. Ambrose Young, so I have no idea at all what you're accusing me of here.